Why do opps always bid my suit?

[PhilG007]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj983ha7dajc643&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1c(Natural%204%2B%20cards)p1s]133|200[/hv]

 

Teams (24 board match)

 

Pass? Or bid? If so, what?

I would never bid the enemy suit in a natural sense. Overcalls are often dicey. THIS one,when you KNOW an opponent

is strong in your trump suit is just bizarre. It's one thing to have the misfortune to skid off the road;quite another

to accelerate deliberately into a tree(!) :rolleyes: Bidding opponents suit should only ever be used in a conventional

sense,and then again only in an established partnership after discussion and agreement. On the hand and bidding given,

all you can do is pass and wait developments. Who knows,your spades could prove to be opponents nemesis :P

[1eyedjack]

I would never bid the enemy suit in a natural sense.

That's good enough for me. 2S it is, then.

Bidding opponents suit should only ever be used in a conventional sense, and then again only in an established partnership after discussion and agreement. On the hand and bidding given, all you can do is pass and wait developments. Who knows,your spades could prove to be opponents nemesis :P

Accept that you are in a minority. You are entitled so to be. For the mainstream, there are a number of occasions where the norm is for a cue bid to be natural.

 

Using the active tense ("*I* would never do this or that") is fine. The passive tense ("This or that should only ever be done") smacks of mainstream advice that potentially runs counter to conventional wisdom, as here.

[Jinksy]

That's good enough for me. 2S it is, then.

 

Yup, I'm persuaded.

 

Also, why is PhilG007 unbanned? It's not like he's got any less trolly

[masse24]

2♠

 

Is this the "Voice of Thunder" 2♠ I've heard so much about? :D

[PhilG007]

That's good enough for me. 2S it is, then.

 

Accept that you are in a minority. You are entitled so to be. For the mainstream, there are a number of occasions where the norm is for a cue bid to be natural.

 

Using the active tense ("*I* would never do this or that") is fine. The passive tense ("This or that should only ever be done") smacks of mainstream advice that potentially runs counter to conventional wisdom, as here.

So you still intend to bid 2♠ despite a stack of them being announced on your right(?) On thy head be it (!)

[PhilG007]

Yup, I'm persuaded.

 

Also, why is PhilG007 unbanned? It's not like he's got any less trolly

Easily persuaded,easily led The blind leading the blind (!) :P

[1eyedjack]

So you still intend to bid 2♠ despite a stack of them being announced on your right(?) On thy head be it (!)

I don't think that he has announced anything more than 6542 in the suit. That hardly constitutes a "stack". Indeed your own holding tends to favour the odds that RHO's length is inherently unlikely to be significantly more than the minimum possible. Three factors favour bidding 2S:

(1) It may be your last chance to get this hand across without compromising safety

(2) it is vanishingly unlikely that the opponents are going to elect to play the hand in Spades

(3) if you get to buy it in Spades, at least you know where the opposing trumps are.

 

As to it being "on my head", I don't envisage any disaster befalling me for bidding 2S on this hand (unless of course a wheel comes off and partner places me with something completely different).

[PhilG007]

I don't think that he has announced anything more than 6542 in the suit. That hardly constitutes a "stack". Indeed your own holding tends to favour the odds that RHO's length is inherently unlikely to be significantly more than the minimum possible. Three factors favour bidding 2S:

(1) It may be your last chance to get this hand across without compromising safety

(2) it is vanishingly unlikely that the opponents are going to elect to play the hand in Spades

(3) if you get to buy it in Spades, at least you know where the opposing trumps are.

 

As to it being "on my head", I don't envisage any disaster befalling me for bidding 2S on this hand (unless of course a wheel comes off and partner places me with something completely different).

I've lost count of the number of times a "wheel came off" The script was doctored and partner placing me with

something completely different. I recall it was something to do with being on different wavelengths :rolleyes:

Bridge can be a cruel game sometimes :angry:

[1eyedjack]

If the question is what should an established competent partnership be playing by agreement, then the prospect of a wheel coming off does not really feature.

 

The prospect of a wheel coming off may feature if there is no express agreement and you have to resort "on the fly" to what you and your partner each consider to be a common standard, resulting in differing conclusions. That prospect is more pronounced if there is no common standard to cover the scenario, or if there are several of comparable popularity. I do not see that here.

 

That prospect is also more pronounced if your own perception of what is standard is way out of kilter with the mainstream population, which I personally think to be so in your case, but that is just an opinion.

 

If the question were what do you bid opposite a pickup partner on BBO then I have more sympathy with pass, although I don't consider that question to be of interest to me and I do not interpret that to be the purpose of this discussion.

[neilkaz]

I've lost count of the number of times a "wheel came off" The script was doctored and partner placing me with

something completely different. I recall it was something to do with being on different wavelengths :rolleyes:

Bridge can be a cruel game sometimes :angry:

 

As long as you agreement with PD is the same as I have which is that when the opps bid two suits both of which can be 4 card suits your bid of their suit is natural since you don't need millions of ways to show the other two suits, then why would the wheels come off? This is a very good 17 HCP and your AKJxxx sits over their ♠.

 

Now if playing with some random pick-up then the wheels might come off.

[Nabooba]

I've lost count of the number of times a "wheel came off" The script was doctored and partner placing me with

something completely different. I recall it was something to do with being on different wavelengths :rolleyes:

Bridge can be a cruel game sometimes :angry:

 

I do not understand this comment. You are not playing with a random pickup, you are playing in your normal partnership. If you have not discussed this then you are not serious about the game. This is a 2S bid.

[masse24]

I've lost count of the number of times a "wheel came off" . . . it was something to do with being on different wavelengths :rolleyes:

 

A frequent occurrence?

 

A possible solution might be to adhere to more standard bidding practices. You might consider it.

[miamijd]

In the absence of conventional agreements, there's (as far as I can see) no hurry to bid those ♠s. West's next call is probably either 1NT (12-14) or 2♣. There's just not enough high cards in the pack to foresee any other action. 2♠ on the second round by South would, I feel, be natural.

 

If West does (perhaps unbelievably) make any bid other than 1NT or 2♣ then partner has absolutely nothing, and the hand could be a serious misfit. Best to pass initially and see what happens first.

 

No hurry? Let's say West bids 2C and East raises to 3C. Now you have a bit of a problem, no?

[miamijd]

I would never bid the enemy suit in a natural sense. Overcalls are often dicey. THIS one,when you KNOW an opponent

is strong in your trump suit is just bizarre. It's one thing to have the misfortune to skid off the road;quite another

to accelerate deliberately into a tree(!) :rolleyes: Bidding opponents suit should only ever be used in a conventional

sense,and then again only in an established partnership after discussion and agreement. On the hand and bidding given,

all you can do is pass and wait developments. Who knows,your spades could prove to be opponents nemesis :P

 

OK, but what you would do and what 95%+ of experts would do here are diametrically opposed.

[RedSpawn]

I don't know anyone (else?) that plays this. Partner bids 2♥ (or whatever) and my 2♠ cue is most often a stronger invite than a raise in HEARTS.

 

Marshal Miles talked Eddie Kantar into playing all doubles are either takeout or penalty, look at your hand to decide which. Alertable of course and I believe this treatment is too.

 

Kantar has a hilarious description of this experiment buried in the humour pages of his website including defending a 1 level contract doubled in the opponents 12 card fit before they abandoned this after 1 session.

 

My role at this point is to let my partner know I have 17-19 points and a very well defined spade suit. I am not seeing any other bidding structure that accomplishes this without the power double.

 

Also, I am not worried about who has the missing spades because the only ♠ I am interesting in getting is the missing Q10♠.

 

I have AKJ983♠, 17-18HCP, and two other suits under decent control. I am preferring a power double instead of a cue bid WHICH TAKES UP A WHOLE ROW of bidding for my partner to respond.

 

I want my partner to respond at the 2 level so I can collect intelligence on his hand shape and power before committing to the 2♠ bid.

[RedSpawn]

2♠

 

I am not disagreeing that 2♠ can be bid.

 

What I am asking is what is "wrong" with the takeout double first?

 

In practical terms, a hand should have about 10 to 16 points for a simple overcall at the two level. When you have a stronger hand (at least 17 points and a good six card or longer suit), start with a takeout double and then bid your suit.

 

2♠ bid direct understates your hand's value. There is nothing wrong with that especially since both teams are vulnerable, but I am not buying that the power double is inappropriate in this scenario.

[MrAce]

What I am asking is what is "wrong" with the takeout double first?

 

In practical terms, a hand should have about 10 to 16 points for a simple overcall at the two level. When you have a stronger hand (at least 17 points and a good six card or longer suit), start with a takeout double and then bid your suit.

 

2♠ bid direct understates your hand's value. There is nothing wrong with that especially since both teams are vulnerable, but I am not buying that the power double is inappropriate in this scenario.

 

It has been over 2 decades if not more that experts started overcalling up to 18 hcps. Another and most important reason for not starting double is not being able to bid spades later naturally without it being confused with cue bid. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

[RedSpawn]

What do you bid with a huge two or three suiter short in spades? I think most would double then bid 2S. Unless you have a very firm agreement with partner that a tox followed by a bid of the doubled suit shows that suit, doubling here is likely to lead to a very muddled auction.

 

The power double is usually reserved for bids with one long suit and great strength. If you have 3 suited hand and short in spades, then what you are talking about is a regular takeout double and since you are 3 suited and can support ANY bid your partner makes by skipping a level. I said there are two types of doubles in this scenario. One is the plain vanilla takeout double of 13+ HCP and supporting your partner's bid suit. The 2nd is the 17-18+ hand where you rebid your long suit after the DOUBLE.

 

Bidding the natural 2♠ is fine, it just doesn't let your partner know how strong your hand is. It is the lesser of 2 evils.

[johnu]

I am not disagreeing that 2♠ can be bid.

 

What I am asking is what is "wrong" with the takeout double first?

 

In practical terms, a hand should have about 10 to 16 points for a simple overcall at the two level. When you have a stronger hand (at least 17 points and a good six card or longer suit), start with a takeout double and then bid your suit.

 

2♠ bid direct understates your hand's value. There is nothing wrong with that especially since both teams are vulnerable, but I am not buying that the power double is inappropriate in this scenario.

 

Takeout double and then bidding a new suit with a very good hand (except for those playing some kind of equal level conversion) is specifically a new suit, not one of the opponents suits. I've never heard or read of any experts doing that with an opponent's suit. Bidding spades would be a cue bid or maybe showing/asking a spade stopper for NT, so lots of luck trying to play in spades, and convincing partner you have spades instead of showing a very good hand for the original takeout double.

 

Go ahead and double planning to bid spades on a hand like this but I don't know any expert (or even average club player) who would play you for long spades.

[Zelandakh]

I think this discussion is ready to move on to an area that is not often mentioned in bridge literature, double then cue after the opps have bid 2 suits. So here is my question to the audience, compare the following auctions and explain what is being shown in each case (1♣ is Acol, showing a 4+ card suit):-

 

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - 2♣

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - 2♠

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - X; (P) - 2♥ - (P) - 2♠

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - X; (P) - 2♥ - (P) - 3♣

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - X; (2♣) - P - (P) - 2♠

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - X; (2♣) - P - (P) - 3♣

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - X; (2♣) - 2♥ - (P) - 2♠

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - X; (2♣) - 2♥ - (P) - 3♣

(1♣) - P - (1♥) - X; (2♥) - 2♠ - (P) - 3♣

(1♣) - P - (1♥) - X; (2♥) - 2♠ - (P) - 3♥

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - X; (2♠) - P - (P) - 3♣

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - X; (2♠) - P - (P) - 3♠

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - X; (2♠) - 3♥ - (P) - 3♠

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - X; (2♠) - 3♥ - (P) - 4♣

 

How confident are you in each case that a) your regular partner will understand; b) that a pick-up will understand?

[xbabarx]

2!s